- From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:13:49 PST
- To: John Turner <johnt@cgocable.net>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Hi, John -- I've been assuming something like the DMA model of containment. Here is a quote from the DMA spec on the difference between direct membership in a collection and membership-by-reference. I can see that you understand something different by direct containment. Can you explain what it is, and how it differs from membership-by-reference in your model? "Direct containment. This models a 1:N, or one-to-many, relationship. A containing object may contain multiple objects, but an object is directly contained within at most one containing object. A containing object that directly contains another object is the parent of that object. An object that is directly contained within a parent object is a child of that parent. Multiple directly contained objects are children. Direct containment defines a strict hierarchy of objects with no cycles. Document spaces implementing direct containment must prevent cycles. For example, moving a parent into one of its children must be disallowed. DMA does not limit the depth of the direct containment hierarchy, but a document space may choose to impose a limit." "Referential containment. This models an N:M, or many-to-many, relationship. Objects that are referentially contained within a containing object are referred to as containees. A containing object that referentially contains another object is referred to as a container of that object. A container may contain multiple containees. A containee may be contained within multiple containers. Cycles in referential containment relationships are not disallowed by DMA, because they could be expensive to prevent. A document space may choose to disallow them, however, in which case it is obligated to enforce this. DMA defines operations that modify containment hierarchies in such a fashion that cyclical referential containment can be supported." At 04:51 AM 2/20/98 PST, John Turner wrote: >I have a few comments on the requirements for collections. > >At 01:02 PM 2/20/98 PST, you wrote: >> . >> . >> . >> >>1. A resource is a direct member of only one collection. > >It seems to me that this requirement is mixing ideas. Direct membership can >be used to indicate that something is a part of the collection and should be >treated as such. A compound document for example. Saying that it can only >be a direct part of one document limits the usefulness. There is no reason >(except for complexity) that a document cannot have aliases in the >namespace. A server that implements the namespace directly from a file >system would certainly have a harder time with aliases, but a server that >has a document manager as backend could deal with it easily. In addition, >it would limit the means the DM server has to represent its documents in a >web namespace. > Name: Judith A. Slein E-Mail: slein@wrc.xerox.com Phone: (716) 422-5169 Fax: (716) 422-2938 Xerox Corporation Mail Stop 105-50C 800 Phillips Road Webster, NY 14580
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 1998 17:09:14 UTC